(Evan Vucci/The Associated Press)
The Department of Justice is now involved in an open cover-up conducted in direct violation of federal law.
Over the weekend, the department quietly removed 16 photos from the Epstein files website it created to comply with a disclosure statute passed by Congress and signed by the president. Donald Trump. The removals came without notice or explanation. Among the deleted images was one of the few photos that even indirectly featured Trump, an image of an indoor dresser drawer. of Jeffrey Epstein Manhattan home containing other photos, including at least one of Trump. Twelve others described Epstein’s third-floor massage room, a central crime scene in the federal investigation. Some images of the same room remain public. Others have disappeared.
When Democrats on the House Oversight Committee asked whether the Trump-related image had been removed, the Justice Department declined to answer.
What happened next made matters worse.
In a post on X quoting Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, The Justice Department said “the photos and other materials will continue to be reviewed and redacted in accordance with the law, with an abundance of caution, as we receive additional information.” Blanche’s original post said the department had released the Epstein materials “pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act” and that additional disclosures would follow “as our review continues, consistent with the law and to protect victims.”
This explanation fails under the statute invoked by the department.
Congress has not authorized continuing review. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the Justice Department to release all Epstein-related materials in its possession. The law imposes a mandatory duty of disclosure and allows only limited redactions to protect victims. It does not grant any authority to withdraw, revise or curate records after release. Once the department released these materials, the law required that they remain publicly available.
Their removal put the department in direct conflict with the statute enacted by Congress.
That conflict was immediately recognized. Blanche’s post received a community note stating that the law requires the release of all files and allows only limited redactions to protect victims, adding that the department’s partial release and extensive redactions violated the statute. The Justice Department’s post received a community memo directly citing the statute and stating that retractions and redactions to protect politically exposed individuals are not permitted. Community notes appear only when users with different political viewpoints agree on their accuracy, highlighting how widely this conclusion was shared.
The department’s own explanation confirm breaks the law it claims to follow.
The sequence explains why. Files went live. The political backlash followed. The department then amended the public record. Conformity was maintained only until the presidential exposé appeared, then gave way to erasure.
In November, I described the Trump Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files as a cover-up. Last week, I wrote that the administration’s delay in disclosure created a political problem rather than an immediate legal one. That assessment reflected weak enforcement mechanisms and an approach based on delays rather than open defiance.
This moment marks the escalation.
Removing already released material implicating the president turns a crisis of credibility into a breach of statute and a much greater political urgency. Congress enacted the Epstein disclosure statute precisely to eliminate executive discretion. The lawmakers acted because the Justice Department has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to handle politically sensitive material involving powerful figures. The law required disclosure to prevent executive self-protection.
The department took advantage of that discretion anyway.
attorney general Pam Bondi had legal options. He could have sought judicial review. They could have consulted Congress. She could have recognized that the statute did not permit any removal authority and sought modification. Either way would have preserved institutional legitimacy. She chose concealment and false justification instead.
This deletion differs from previous Trump-era document battles in a crucial way. Previous litigation has focused on whether the materials must be disclosed. This episode involves evidence already made public under statutory standards. The department determined the images met the law’s requirements, then removed them once the political cost became apparent.
That changes everything.
Every disclosure statute now faces the same test: compliance only survives until it threatens the president. Months of delay, extensive redactions and staged releases have already convinced much of the public that the Justice Department has prioritized Trump’s position over transparency, victims and the public interest. Removing the images confirms this conclusion decisively.
A Justice Department that redacts evidence to protect the president loses its legitimacy. Oversight breaks down when compliance ends up being politically inconvenient. The rule of law depends on statutes that bind the executive even when compliance proves costly.
Congress wrote a law to prevent exactly this abuse. The president signed it. The Attorney General is now violating it to protect him. This meets any reasonable standard for dismissal.
The reaction on Capitol Hill was immediate and bipartisan. Rep. Democratic Ro Khanna of California, who co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, which forced compelling disclosure of the House vote, both said the Justice Department had failed to follow the law. Khanna confirmed that he and Massie are drafting impeachment and contempt proceedings against the attorney general Pam Bondi.
Congress now faces a choice. It can accept that disclosure laws only apply when they are politically painless. It can normalize the disappearance of already public evidence. It can allow the executive branch to override the legislative command.
Or he can apply the law he wrote.
This is a cover-up imposed in defiance of the executive. The question now is whether Congress will enforce its own laws.
The post Avocable: Pam Bondi defied federal law by deleting Epstein photos to protect Trump appeared first on Mediaite.